Germany Urges EU to Require 7 Years of Updates and Repairs for iOS Devices

[jlc1978]

Haven’t said such modus operandi is an US phenomena only. But recurrently I find this kind of argumentation in this forum when foreign administrations address an issue that may impact Apple.

I do as well, but a handful of posters that I simply ignore, engaing on such arguments serve no purpose and simply add to the noise.

I think its not hard to understand that regulations come more has an reaction than an a planned action.

Certainly. In several places I worked we knew the rules were often written in blood.

In the last 12 years there is an undeniable a trend in Big Tech, such as Apple, in refusing to fix the devices they produce by systematically arguing that is not fixable. Offering only as an option a replacement accompanied with not a small bill when the issue happens out of warranty. This would be ok, if there was not uncountable proof that indeed in a lot of situations are actually fixable.

They aren't but that is a design issue driven by the desire for cheaper manufacturing and smaller devices.

I find that in this forum is quite common counter argue any form of regulation by deriving from it a rise in prices. With that stance, any form of regulation is against the consumer, no other option. Regardless of the regulation at hand. So much so I tend to see them as null.

The key point is regulation is a tradeoff between consumer benefit and costs. Anarchy is not a solution, but often politicians drive regulation whose benefits that do not outweigh the costs for their own reasons, and couch them as benefiting consumers.

In fact, regulation may initially drive prices a bit up, but as manufacturing processes are streamlined along with competition it tends to normalize. Some regulation even drive prices down by adopting common standards.

Sometimes, but often common standards, if legally required, hinder innovation.

As a matter of regulation be a barrier to entry. Some are, others not so much.

A lot depens on teh barrier. A 7 year repair / warranty would certainly prevent small innovative companies from entering the market; while allowing well capitalized ones the ability, if the they produce cheap products to either comply or use other legal methods to not comply.

For instance, its unarguable that the GDPR regulation have put on devs greater complexity in the development process if not to management. But again, it tends to be streamlined so much so, no one argues it to be a barrier to entry.

However, for non-EU companies GDPR requirement means added costs, or as some do, not allowing website access in the EU.

“However, Germany wants the EU to go further by demanding seven years of updates and spare parts availability. In addition, it wants manufacturers to offer spare parts at "a reasonable price," and faster delivery of spare parts, a point it wishes to discuss further with the Commission.”

Back to this proposal. Right now, fundamentally I don‘t see how it helps to stop the practices described in * which are at the core of most complaints while profit margins of suppliers seam to be rising.

I agree with you that it really won't change things, once again the Germans are trying to force their ideas on the rest of Europe.

So the benefits of non modularity aren’t really scaling down to the consumer but in effect scaling up with repair costs rising infinitely. So much so customer are pushed to buy a new one rather than fix the faulty product. With an increasing rise in the production of waste with negative impact on the environment. I guess innovation … depends how you see it … it does may not be a move forword all together, but actually a move backwards in some aspects.

I agree there needs to be a way to better deal with waste, but it needs to start at the very beginning with designs that are easily recyclable if not repairable. Of course, we are our own enemies because often it is easier to throw something in the bin than deal with fixing since the waste goes elsewhere.

No, if the EU were to impose a regulation requiring the country of assembly to take back the waste...

 

[RolandGo]

I agree with you that it really won't change things, once again the Germans are trying to force their ideas on the rest of Europe.

Disinformation nonsense. Every EU member state can make such suggestions. Adaptation by the EU is a whole different thing. How is there any force involved?

Would you also be this hostile if the suggestion came from Luxemburg or do you just hate Germans?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

However, none of what you say is written into law, as far as I can tell, but rather your interpretation of what a defect constitutes. IFAICT, the law places the burden on the consumer to prove an item is defective after a fixed period, which means a manufacturer can claim those ae not defects and leave it up to the consumer to prove otherwise.

I in-fact invite you to open up the law provided by the Eu commission or any member state. It is specifically stated exactly what it is. This is civil law and not common law. Room for interpretation is extremely slim.
EU consumer protection
These laws are written in the consumers favor and not neutral.

For example, batteries lose capacity as they age. Apple sets 80% as its threshold, probably because most Mac batteries will stay at that level for at least 3 years so AppleCare need not cover them in most cases. Mine reached <80% 1 month before AC ran out so they replace it (and the entire top case) for free.

If apple in any public documentation or commercials, statement etc states the batteries should last x amount of recharging cycles before falling below 80% or x amount of yearsthey are legally responsible to replace it at no cost.

Paint? The machine is still fit for purpose and paint does wear.

Indeed, but if the paint chips or fades more than equivalent products it’s still a defect. For example Tesla model 3 have had paint problems within a few Months of delivery, a problem no other equivalent car have. They are forced to cover this. So no dice for Tesla.

Software? Well, reformat the drive to the latest version of the OS. If it works as delivered then, there is no defect. If it fails when you add another program, then it's an issue with that program, not the machine.

Software such as speakers or headsets having Bluetooth connectivity issues, or iPhone having a faulty gps and connectivity issues etc

My point is there is a lot of grey areas for a shop (as the seller who is often liable for repairs) to claim the defect did not exist at sale, as many laws require in order for it to be covered. Good sellers will take care of issues, but you still are relying on the goodwill of the seller in the end. My experience with Apple has been great, which is one reason I stick with them. YMMV

The seller have no ability to claim the defect did not exist unless they proved it.
Day 1-180 they must prove a negative as it’s by law assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. Day 180+ the customer must prove it was a manufacturing defect and not caused by them

To d the repairs you describe means designing for sockets, etc, which increases size, introduces more wiring since you won't have all in one chips, etc to do IC level repairs.

What I’m describing have no need for sockets. I’m not describing repairing inside of chips(practically impossible) but running diagnostics to find what’s wrong and replacing it. Same way you remove a break pad, a cable, spark plug, shaft crank etc.
outside of ram or storage.

If a company contracts out a unique chip design they own the IP and should be free to decide how it can be sold. As for generic parts, those can be bought.

I would disagree. It being unique is not a legal defense for not being able to repair it with a replacement

In general, yes. Bt in some case companies may want to obfuscate certain parts for whatever reason and should not be forced to reveal their designs.

If the product is released they would have to prove why this diagnostic diagram would be damaging in any way to not be publicly available.

That is not a board level repair, but simply swap and hope the problem is fixed.

This is a board level repair, you exchange a blown fuse, replace a ripped cable or contact missing one pin to provide backlight to the display etc. there is nothing to hope for if you can do a proper diagnostic instead of swapping the entire board. And customers should have the option to choose to replace component or the entire device if they must pay for it

Nothing new there. I added bluetooth to my BMW with donor parts, a wiring pinout swap, and some coding.

And you should be able to just order a genuine part instead of complicated workarounds

If spare parts were readily available, I bet the cost of rolling your own will exceed buying a new one; as it does in other industries, such as automotive, where yo can in they do just that. If it didn't the phone market would be flooded with 100% functional phones that compete with the manufacturers phones; although with no warranty or assurances they were actually properly assembled. My guess is, if you could get the mother board, knockoffs with cheap screes, shells, and cameras would start appearing. Those knockoffs, many of which would be sold as genuine, would hurt Apple's reputation; especially when people come in for service and are told, Sorry, you've been fooled.

The thing is that individual components are still vastly more expensive and complicated to assemble individually compared to factory assemblies. Repairs is just reasonable until a point before the total repair and labor costs more than a new product or second hand one. Just as with any other market with rights to repair. It’s a non issue. And it’s impossible to sell a product without warranty and also a non issue.

I'm not against repairability, in fact I like fixing my stuff instead of throwing it out, often to the chagrin of my wife when she finds the washer torn apart in the laundry room as I replace a faulty valve for 30Euros instead of spring a 1000 for a new machine. However, the drive to smaller, faster, cheaper electronics has made repairability difficult; to the point where doing so would require consumers to accept radically different products, which most consumers would complain about.

Nothing is needed to change with modern products in any radical ways. They would just be prohibited from artificialy making it harder to repair and provide with Spair parts and schematics and error code meaning and what to do.

Yup. I do, to multiple drives in case one fails. If your work and time is that valuable you should have a robost backup schema.

That’s great, it’s just for everyone else in those moments when **** goes wrong when it shouldn’t.

Companies could also simply refund the purchase price if new models are significantly more expensive.

This would grant the consumer right for damages and compensation if they are forced to buy a replacement product

 

[Nuno Lopes]

They aren't but that is a design issue driven by the desire for cheaper manufacturing and smaller devices.

I remember my first iPhone, top of the line 620 euros. Now, top of the line … 1250 euros. Not much bigger. Don’t think consumers see that has a benefit.

A lot depens on teh barrier. A 7 year repair / warranty would certainly prevent small innovative companies from entering the market; while allowing well capitalized ones the ability, if the they produce cheap products to either comply or use other legal methods to not comply.

It depends. If the smaller innovative companies focus on innovation using non reparable solutions or not.

However, for non-EU companies GDPR requirement means added costs, or as some do, not allowing website access in the EU.

Snarky response. Here is another one … I’m glad EU administration has contributed to a safer US digital economy for US consumers

NOTE: In business terms this is not considered extra cost. Extra in relationship to what?

I agree with you that it really won't change things, once again the Germans are trying to force their ideas on the rest of Europe.

Any EU country can make suggestions. But I tend to agree that sometimes looks like that is the case … not too long ago …

 

[jlc1978]

Disinformation nonsense. Every EU member state can make such suggestions. Adaptation by the EU is a whole different thing. How is there any force involved?

Would you also be this hostile if the suggestion came from Luxemburg or do you just hate Germans?

No hatred to the Germans, just pointing out German have tried using its economic clout to try to dictate to the EU, with varying degrees of success.

Snarky response. Here is another one … I’m glad EU administration has contributed to a safer US digital economy for US consumers

Yea, the US really protects private data, just as Google, Amazon,Facebook... Oh wait, I just got a popup ad for ....

NOTE: In business terms this is not considered extra cost. Extra in relationship to what?

If they allow EU access, the EU expects them to comply with the GDRP, which means added oversight costs, or ignoring it as they are not in the EU which has no cost associated with it.

Any EU country can make suggestions. But I tend to agree that sometimes looks like that is the case … not too long ago …

Beats tanks at least.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

If they allow EU access, the EU expects them to comply with the GDRP, which means added oversight costs, or ignoring it as they are not in the EU which has no cost associated with it.

Its not extra cost, its just the cost of doing business in a particular region.

 

[jlc1978]

I in-fact invite you to open up the law provided by the Eu commission or any member state. It is specifically stated exactly what it is. This is civil law and not common law. Room for interpretation is extremely slim.
EU consumer protection
These laws are written in the consumers favor and not neutral.

A few points from your URL as to caveats about what is a defect:

1. the defect causing the damage did not exist when the product was placed on the market
2. the defect arose only because your product had to fulfil mandatory technical requirements
3. according to the latest scientific and technical standards, no one could have foreseen the defect when you placed the product on the market

If apple in any public documentation or commercials, statement etc states the batteries should last x amount of recharging cycles before falling below 80% or x amount of yearsthey are legally responsible to replace it at no cost.

Simple. Don't make specific claims in ads or documentation, or make them much less restrictive.

Indeed, but if the paint chips or fades more than equivalent products it’s still a defect. For example Tesla model 3 have had paint problems within a few Months of delivery, a problem no other equivalent car have. They are forced to cover this. So no dice for Tesla

Of course, as I said there are grey areas.

Software such as speakers or headsets having Bluetooth connectivity issues, or iPhone having a faulty gps and connectivity issues etc

And the computer manufacturer will point to the accessory as at fault, and vice versa. In the case of GPS, within the accuracy of the device and or signal issues with the satellite.

The seller have no ability to claim the defect did not exist unless they proved it.
Day 1-180 they must prove a negative as it’s by law assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. Day 180+ the customer must prove it was a manufacturing defect and not caused by them

Also, when the reversal of proof occurs varies:

Europe wanted to protect consumers because it is often difficult to provide proof of a defect, by resorting to an expert assessment, which can be costly. Therefore, for at least 6 months, any defect is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery and you do not need to prove the defect to invoke the guarantee, unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

In France and in Portugal (Yes!) for example, this reversal of the burden of proof lasts for the entire duration of the guarantee. Thus, you do not have to prove to your seller a defect that would appear within two years of delivery of the product: it is presumed to have existed upon delivery and it is up to your seller to demonstrate that the product was in conformity. In Slovakia and Poland, for example, this period is one year.

Its not extra cost, its just the cost of doing business in a particular region.

Well, if I don't do it there I do not have the costs, so it is an extra cost of doing business there due to regulations.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

No hatred to the Germans, just pointing out German have tried using its economic clout to try to dictate to the EU, with varying degrees of success.

Don’t see how relevant that is to the issue at hand. You would probably say the same to every German suggestion.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Well, if I don't do it there I do not have the costs, so it is an extra cost of doing business there due to regulations.

If you don’t obey the law of a region you don’t do business in the region. This regulation and many others. Its just the cost of doing business in that region. There is no extra cost on top of the sale.

By the way. In terms of revenue generation for Apple, the EU is the second region after the US. Must be because of the “extra cost” its not the first

Beats tanks at least.

Ever so slightly inappropriate. But I get the dark humor.

 

[jlc1978]

If you don’t obey the law of a region you don’t do business in the region. This regulation and many others. Its just the cost of doing business in that region. There is no extra cost on top of the sale.

It depends on what you define as costs. If it cost X in one region, and X+Y in another, to me Y is additional costs no matter what the reason.
To use the car analogy, some companies withdrew from the US market when the US introduced various emissions and bumper rules, because the volume they sold didn't justify the compliance costs. Yes, it was a cost of doing business but still cost over other markets. The upside was it spared the Americans Fiats and cars with Lucas electricals.

By the way. In terms of revenue generation for Apple, the EU is the second region after the US.

Which is why the "stop selling in the EU" argument is ludicrous.

Must be because of the “extra cost” its not the first

Nah, they just markup the price as a favor to Americans.

Ever so slightly inappropriate.

Inappropriate is my middle name.

But I get the dark humor.

I figured you would.

 

[RolandGo]

No hatred to the Germans, just pointing out German have tried using its economic clout to try to dictate to the EU, with varying degrees of success.

No one member state can dictate anything. That’s not how the EU works. Please inform yourself before posting this nonsense.

With your permission, I will inform the EU Commission that you have banned the member states with large economies from making any legislative suggestions. Should make things easier.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

It depends on what you define as costs. If it cost X in one region, and X+Y in another, to me Y is additional costs no matter what the reason.

Extra costs for me is an optional value on top of something. When is not optional is just cost.

For instance, the cost of living in NYC is higher than say in Lisbon Portugal. I just say its more expensive living in NYC not that it carries a lot of extra costs … as it would imply that is otherwise unnecessary if not superfluous … but it is not if I want to live in NYC. So it just becomes the cost of living in NYC.

Hopefully I explained well what I read in you words. Anyway, thank you for clarifying.

By the way. Also in the EU the standard consumer warranty time is two years for devices. One year more than in the US. More extra costs maybe.

There is some difference between how cultures see costs indeed. For instance I remember Apple announcing the price of an iPhone at $99 in US. Everyone cheering as it was so cheap, but it came with contract. This number was all over the place. Here was 599 Euros or something so I guess with a lot of “extra costs” in it I always very confused why people in the US were so gobsmacked by the price, when here we knew it was being included in the telco contract … meaning higher telco costs (extra costs?). In EU don’t think it could have been announced in such a misleading way …

But hey no biggies. I’m diverging from the discussion … just agreeing with you that such a simple concept such as cost can get very complex depending how one wings it.

Cheers.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

A few points from your URL as to caveats about what is a defect:

1. the defect causing the damage did not exist when the product was placed on the market
2. the defect arose only because your product had to fulfil mandatory technical requirements
3. according to the latest scientific and technical standards, no one could have foreseen the defect when you placed the product on the market

These points do not contradict the consumer rights of private individuals.
If any product meet these criteria it will always 100% of the time be judged in the customers favor.

Be aware that you are legally bound by any public statements you make about your products, especially through advertisements or on labels.

If you are a retailer, your customers can ask for redress under the legal guarantee provided by EU law - if an item:

• doesn't match the product description
• has different qualities from the model advertised or shown to the client
• is not fit for purpose - either its standard purpose or a specific purpose ordered by the customer which you accepted
• doesn't show the quality and performance normal in products of the same type
• wasn't installed correctly - either by you, or by the customer, due to shortcomings in the instructions

If you inform your customer that the product you are going to sell has quality problems, they cannot then claim redress from you about this particular defect.

Simple. Don't make specific claims in ads or documentation, or make them much less restrictive.

good luck, if a statement is vague it will always be interpreted from a regular customers point of view such as with apple refusing to cover water damages are now forced to do so because it’s advertised as having water resistant lance with x quality and therefore reasonable for some to believe this even if the fine print says otherwise

Of course, as I said there are grey areas.

Seems very black and white as did the law when

And the computer manufacturer will point to the accessory as at fault, and vice versa. In the case of GPS, within the accuracy of the device and or signal issues with the satellite.

Well they are free to prove that (good luck) and if my phone/gps had a bad gps they would just take another product or brand phone/gps with equivalent specifications/price and compare. If the other ones performs better as expected it will be deemed a product defect.

Also, when the reversal of proof occurs varies:

Yea I know, I’m just stating the minimum legal requirements, the standards can only be equal or better. For example for me in Sweden I have 3 years of protection instead of 2

Well, if I don't do it there I do not have the costs, so it is an extra cost of doing business there due to regulations.

Well the life of doing business in difrent markets

 

[Flood4]

That is true...will we here in the US be able to buy parts, manuals, support for 7 years on all VW, Audi, MB, Porsche, Mini, etc? That should be mandatory....given how overly complicated and over engineered they are.

Not sure for the US, but if I’m not mistaking in Canada it’s 10years of car parts they have to provide.

 

[jlc1978]

No one member state can dictate anything. That’s not how the EU works. Please inform yourself before posting this nonsense.

See Germany, Merkel, and the PIGS bailout negotiations, for example.

With your permission, I will inform the EU Commission that you have banned the member states with large economies from making any legislative suggestions. Should make things easier.

No doubt some would welcome silencing Germany.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

No doubt some would welcome silencing Germany.

Gotta love trash talk

Again, all things considered I think you may be directing it to the wrong region.

 

[Gog2495]

I doubt the EU has the courage to impose these laws to ANY Chinese tech company like Huawei or Xiaomi..... they'd be bankrupted if they were legally forced to "support" (tech support, material support, parts and labor repairs) their old devices from 4 years past.

Again, the EU being selective hypocrites... they are singling out the big successful US companies. No surprise here.

Have you realized that this proposal is for every smartphone maker, not only Apple?? Here is a translation of the original German article, just in case you have doubts:


In negotiations with the EU Commission, the federal government wants to advocate strict environmental regulations for smartphones and tablets. Spare parts and security updates should be available for seven years, said a spokeswoman for the Federal Ministry of Economics at the request of c't. In addition, the spare parts should be made available "at a reasonable price".

With these demands, the Federal Government goes beyond the recently announced proposals of the EU Commission. The commission plans to make updates and replacement parts mandatory for five years, while tablet replacement parts are to be available for six years. In addition, she wants to force manufacturers to publish the prices of spare parts and not to increase them afterwards - but she does not plan to set prices.

Faster delivery of spare parts
When it comes to the question of how quickly the spare parts have to be delivered, the federal government wants to advocate stricter rules. The Commission is currently planning a maximum delivery time of five working days. This point will "have to be discussed", said the spokeswoman for the Ministry of Economic Affairs. A long repair time could result in customers opting for an exchange rather than a repair.

In principle, the federal government supports the Commission's initiative to introduce ecodesign rules, an energy label and a reparability index for smartphones and tablets. It is right to "increase the reliability and repairability of the devices," said the spokeswoman. This is because the production of the devices accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, and only part of the raw materials can be recovered when recycling.

Industry only wants updates for two to three years
From the point of view of the digital Europe industry association, which represents manufacturers such as Apple, Samsung and Huawei, the Commission's proposals go far too far. In a position paper, he suggests that manufacturers deliver security updates for three years and function updates for two years.

The association's obligation to spare parts also goes too far: manufacturers should only have to deliver displays and batteries; other parts such as cameras, microphones, speakers and connectors would rarely fail.

 

[pankajdoharey]

Tell us you didn’t read the article without saying you didn’t read the article.

Now i read it, it applies to all manufacturers.